Nobody wants to have a war with Iran except Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu, so it could still happen.
IF
a deeply troubling international situation suddenly looks too good to
be true, it usually is just that – and so desperately bad as to need
looking good.
And so it is with the positions of the
permanent
members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) over Israel’s push to attack
Iran, a situation that can soon become much more desperate.
China
and Russia have long resisted the Israel-
United States axis’ efforts to
recreate West Asia in its own image, or at least to its own preference.
The point was driven home when, under cover of “protecting innocents”
through a ceasefire and no-fly zone in Libya last year,
Western
countries openly attacked government forces.
Now that Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya are gone, the only Muslim
nation capable of standing up to the axis is Iran. But how to fashion a
case against Iran that looks at least half-credible internationally?
On
attack mode: If the United States still insists on staying away,
without even red lines or deadlines for Iran to conform to, Israel may
well go it alone and attack Iran. — EPA
Israel, the
only nuclear-armed country in the region, does not pretend it has
evidence of Iranian plans for nuclear bombs. So its best pretext is that
Iran may one day have them, despite
Teheran’s repeated assurances that
its nuclear energy production and medical research are not a prelude to
nuclear armaments.
China and Russia have no desire to see a
nuclear-armed Iran either, in fact quite the reverse. Their intelligence
services report that there are no grounds to assume that Iran has or
even wants to have nuclear weapons.
The conclusion is shared by
US and Israeli intelligence, and cited by no less than Israel’s military
chief, among others. But that is “only” the pure outlook of
professionals and technocrats before getting tweaked by politicians.
Israeli
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems bent on creating an imploding
situation, pushing and pulling to make it want to explode and involve
other countries in supporting roles. Chinese and Russian diplomats have
consistently kept well clear of it all.
Sensing that Obama’s
Washington had lately also been keeping its distance, Netanyahu piled on
the pressure for days on end. Then his ultimatum was delivered on
Tuesday: that if the US still insists on staying away, without even red
lines or deadlines for Iran to conform to, Israel may well go it alone
and attack Iran.
And if that happened, Washington could be made
to look bad in failing to live up to its God-given mission of protecting
the free world. In an election season, those kinds of terms can make a
difference, and they did.
News then came the next day that
Beijing and Moscow had at last “agreed” to add their weight to
Western-Israeli condemnation of Iran’s attitude, if not its actions or
policies. That may seem like the hitherto elusive consensus among the
UNSC’s permanent five, except that it never was.
After Israel’s
quiet ultimatum following long days of hard lobbying, its bottom line
finally made Washington scramble – not the fighter jets, but UN
diplomats in persuading Beijing and Moscow to swing their support behind
an alternative approach pre-empting Israel’s further war cries.
At
any rate, the resolution at the IAEA (UN nuclear watchdog) on Thursday
would have no binding effect. If diplomatic declarations are mere
symbols of policy intentions, then the proposed resolution is the most
symbolic of all.
Yet at the most superficial of official levels,
Israel also agrees that diplomacy should still be the first option
before military action. But there is no denying that Netanyahu is
gung-ho on another attack on another Muslim nation, preferably with
other countries rather than Israel doing the work.
Walking the tightrope
Iran
has no plan or policy for nuclear weapons, much less those weapons
themselves. For Netanyahu’s campaign to target Teheran it needed to
spread fear and vilification, while official texts could refer only to
Iran’s attitude and posturing.
Yet despite all his huffing and
puffing, or rather because of them, he is making matters worse for the
entire region. Anyone in a less emotional state can see the thin
tightrope he is treading.
By seeking to force Iran, a country
justly proud of its history and culture, to bow to unreasonable demands,
Netanyahu is only making a rebuff from Teheran inevitable. That would
in turn force Israel to plummet into war, since it would also not want
to lose face.
Then by making clear that the push for war “has to
come now” rather than later when Iran may possess nuclear weapons,
Netanyahu is confirming to Teheran that nuclear weapons work as a
deterrent against foreign attacks. Even if Iran never wanted nuclear
weapons before, it would be sorely tempted to seek them now.
One
result is that Israeli leaders themselves are divided over an attack on
Iran. Its military leaders, President
Shimon Peres and Netanyahu’s own
Deputy Prime Minister
Dan Meridor (in charge of intelligence and nuclear
affairs) are among those who disagree with him on the need to attack
Iran.
Meanwhile, a top-level US report bearing the seal of more
than 30 retired diplomats, admirals, generals and security chiefs advise
that a war with Iran will be more painful and costly than the Iraq and
Afghan invasions combined.
Previous estimates had found that an
attack on Iran would only delay its nuclear programme by several months.
This latest report says that a full-scale attack involving aerial
bombardment, ground troops, cyberwarfare and a military occupation,
among other requirements, would only delay a nuclear programme by
several years, not stop it.
However, the likes of Netanyahu are
determined to press on regardless. He seems to have calculated that a US
election season can give him an edge by pressuring incumbent Obama to
lend him unambiguous support.
Iran may also be hoping that public
anxieties in the US over jobs and a faltering economy can, in an
election season, constrain the urge of US hawks to join Israel. So far
Teheran appears to not want to relent by appeasing the doubters.
Nonetheless,
the prospect of war is still closer than anyone other than Netanyahu
would wish. There are at least five reasons for this.
First, by
pushing the option of a military attack to the maximum, Israeli
policymakers would be loath to effect a turnaround short of a major
Iranian concession. And that would be highly unlikely.
Second,
Netanyahu’s primary aim is not the destruction of Iran but key surgical
strikes against suspected nuclear sites. He and his advisers may well
see this as “doable”, even though the consequences can easily and
quickly become unmanageable.
Third, Iran is likely to retaliate
in more ways than one, including through forms of asymmetrical warfare.
Israel has launched “spot attacks” on Iraq’s and Syria’s installations
before and got away with it, but it has never engaged a country as large
and powerful as Iran.
Fourth, an attack by Israel, or jointly by
Israel and the US, would immediately invite endless rounds of
counter-attacks by militant Muslim groups and individuals around the
world. These are just some of the consequences that are not clearly
foreseeable or controllable.
Fifth, when push comes to shove,
both Democratic and Republican candidates in the US presidential
election are likely to side with Israel.
Once Netanyahu as Prime
Minister sets the country on a war footing, even the naysayers in his
own administration will feel the need to acquiesce in the national
decision.
Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara
Play Video
